He states: "The Supreme Court just ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on election campaigns."

Not so. The decision of the Supreme Court left untouched the federal prohibition against corporations and unions contributing any money to candidates, their campaigns or political parties. The court's ruling only allows corporations and unions to spend money for political ads with respect to candidates or issues, and the ads must specify their sponsors.

It's sad that Smathers believes it is unfair that you be allowed to hear or read arguments on candidates or political issues, but it is fine for incumbents to give speeches or hold news conferences every day, promoting themselves or their positions on issues and have it on national television, free.

Smathers offers no proof or documentation to support or explain his claim that "many" corporations doing business in America are headquartered in foreign countries, that their managements are not American citizens and their majority shareholders are citizens of countries that are enemies of the United States.

Should such a corporation publish a political advertisement, opponents of its position need only to point out the foreign nature of that corporation and its shareholders, and let the people decide. That's how democracy works.

Also, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is a speech, not a federal statute to be interpreted by the court.